IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
Bennett Coleman and Company Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2105 Of 2022
Decided On : 27-06-2023
Income Tax Act - Notice under section 148 - 186 ITR 278 (SC), [2019] 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC) - The court discussed the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act in the name of a non-existent entity and held it to be void based on the legal principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation. The court referred to the judgments in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relevant to the assessment year 2016-17, on the ground that it was issued in the name of a non-existent entity, Times Infotainment Media Ltd. The petitioner had undergone a scheme of amalgamation with the said entity, and the factum of amalgamation was brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notice issued under section 148 in the name of a non-existent entity was void, as the entity had ceased to exist pursuant to the approved scheme of amalgamation. The court referred to relevant legal principles and judgments to support its finding.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the notice issued under section 148 in the name of a non-existent entity, despite the fact that the entity had undergone a scheme of amalgamation and ceased to exist.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notice issued under section 148 was unsustainable in law and set it aside based on the legal principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed.
JUDGMENT :
(Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J.) :
1. The petitioner challenges the notice, dated 31st March 2021 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) relevant to the assessment year 2016-17 primarily on the ground that the same was issued in the name of Times Infotainment Media Ltd. which is a non-existent entity.
2. Briefly stated the material facts are as under :
The case set up by the petitioner is that Times Infotainment Media Ltd. (“TIML”) was a wholly owned subsidiary of the petitioner, i.e., Bennett Coleman and Company Ltd., which was engaged inter-alia in the business of Private FM Radio Broadcasting investment and intellectual property rights (IPR) activities.
It is stated that with a view to consolidate the business of operations of the group companies and on account of various commercial reasons, a scheme of amalgamation and arrangement was formulated for merger of the TIML with the petitioner. It is further stated that Bombay High Court was pleased to sanction the scheme of amalgamation vide its order dated 3rd July 2015 with appointed date as 1st April 2013.
3. It is stated that the factum of amalgamation was brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer vide communication dated 11th May 2016 which fact was acknowledged by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, 1(3)(2), Mumbai vide its communication dated 23rd February 2017. It is further stated that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, vide its communication dated 28th May 2016, had approved the change in the status of TIML as having been amalgamated with the petitioner. The further case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner had revised its income tax returns for the assessment year 2014-15 and included the income and expenditure of TIML for the period 1st April 2012 and 31st March 2014 and submitted the same to the then Assessing Officer vide letter dated 17th November 2016, pursuant to which, an order of assessment under section 143(2) of the Act had been passed based on the modified return fled by the petitioner on 17th November 2016 for the assessment year 2014-15.
4. It is stated that the notice impugned dated 31st March 2021 came to be issued under section 148 of the Act in the name of Times Infotainment Media Ltd. proposing to reassess the income of the said entity on the ground that the income has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act.
In response to the said notice, the petitioner is stated t3o have fled its objections as also brought to the notice of the Assessing officer regarding the factum of amalgamation of TIML with the petitioner-company despite which the Assessing Officer continued with the proceedings and issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act directing the petitioner to furnish the accounts, documents and information mentioned in the said notices.
5. It is in the backdrop of the aforementioned facts that learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the issuance of notice the impugned under section 148 against a non-existent entity was nonest and void ab-initio in the light of the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Maruti Corporation Ltd., (2019) 416 ITR 613. Reliance was also placed upon a judgment of this Court in the case of CLSA India Private Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & 3 Ors., Writ Petition NO.2462 of 2022 dt. 10-02-2023.
6. Objections have not been fled to the writ petition despite ample opportunities given to the respondents in that regard. However, learned counsel for the parties agree to the final disposal of the present petition at the stage of admission itself.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. It is not denied that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act was issued in the name of a non-existent entity, i.e., Times Infotainment Media Ltd. which had ceased to exist pursuant to the Scheme of Amalgamation and arrangement having been
Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Maruti Corporation Ltd.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that issuing a notice and passing an order of assessment in the name of a non-existent entity, despite knowledge of its amalgamation, renders th....
Notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act cannot be issued to a non-existent entity following an amalgamation, as such actions lack legal jurisdiction.
The impugned notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the name of a non-existing company due to amalgamation is not tenable in the eye of law, and the court has the authority t....
Notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act against non-existing companies post-amalgamation are invalid and without jurisdiction.
The legal principle established in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, which states that if a company has ceased to exist as a result of an approved sche....
An assessment notice issued against a non-existing entity post-amalgamation is void ab initio, reinforcing the principle that an amalgamated company ceases to exist legally.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.